At least BlueSky is built on a technology based on open standard protocol and is decentralized. Kind of similar to the goals of Fediverse / Mastodon. So I assume someone else can just create a server and join the network of BlueSky? I don’t know if this is possible. But in reality at the moment its controlled by only one big company.
My hope is that they will one day cooperate with Fediverse, so it becomes read from and write to relationship.
Well its possible to have a bridge system, like its possible with Discord and Matrix. So from technical standpoint, I think it would be possible, unless they choose to not.
As for the centralized vs decentralized, BlueSky uses the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT_Protocol , which is decentralized. If you do not agree to this, then do you have an explanation to why?
Edit: Funny enough I read this AT_Protocl is Based on ActivityPub, according to the Wikipedia article.
My impression is that AT_Protocol lends itself to decentralized computing resources moreso than decentralized control or authority.
In the fediverse, instance owners have pretty strong control over their instance, the content it hosts, the people who can use it, etc. Bluesky takes advantage of self hosters for more distribution and reliability, but still maintains centralized control over content and user management.
The key difference, to me, is that if someone doesn’t like how the main Mastodon instances are running, they can make their own and have a completely separate network from those bad actors without rebuilding the world. With Bluesky, there’s not really any exit door like that.
Bluesky takes advantage of self hosters for more distribution and reliability, but still maintains centralized control over content and user management.
This is what I don’t understand, why would anyone choose to host when there is zero advantage? I sort of feel is by design so they can claim “decentralized” while still having full control over the data.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@beehaw.org
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
At least BlueSky is built on a technology based on open standard protocol and is decentralized. Kind of similar to the goals of Fediverse / Mastodon. So I assume someone else can just create a server and join the network of BlueSky? I don’t know if this is possible. But in reality at the moment its controlled by only one big company.
My hope is that they will one day cooperate with Fediverse, so it becomes read from and write to relationship.
It’s not.
They can’t.
…yep.
ActivityPub existed before BlueSky did and they chose to make their own, incompatible thing. So I don’t have high hopes for this.
Well its possible to have a bridge system, like its possible with Discord and Matrix. So from technical standpoint, I think it would be possible, unless they choose to not.
As for the centralized vs decentralized, BlueSky uses the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT_Protocol , which is decentralized. If you do not agree to this, then do you have an explanation to why?
Edit: Funny enough I read this AT_Protocl is Based on ActivityPub, according to the Wikipedia article.
My impression is that AT_Protocol lends itself to decentralized computing resources moreso than decentralized control or authority.
In the fediverse, instance owners have pretty strong control over their instance, the content it hosts, the people who can use it, etc. Bluesky takes advantage of self hosters for more distribution and reliability, but still maintains centralized control over content and user management.
The key difference, to me, is that if someone doesn’t like how the main Mastodon instances are running, they can make their own and have a completely separate network from those bad actors without rebuilding the world. With Bluesky, there’s not really any exit door like that.
This is what I don’t understand, why would anyone choose to host when there is zero advantage? I sort of feel is by design so they can claim “decentralized” while still having full control over the data.
deleted by creator